Supreme Court sets Limitation Period for application to set aside arbitration award

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

Case Name: AnilKumar Jinabhai Patel(D) v. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel

Decided On 29.03.2018

Bench: Justice RK Agrawal and Justice R Banumathi

Supreme Court of India on Thursday ruled that limitation period for filing of the application for setting aside arbitration award begins from the date of receiving of the signed copy of the award.

Facts

The bench was listening to an appeal filed against a judgment of Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad. Appellant and the respondents were brothers who started a business of manufacturing fertilizer, chemical, and real estate. They set up a number of companies, partnership firms and bought numerous movable and immovable property. To avoid any disputes and litigation both the brothers decided to split up the assets among themselves. Parties mutually agreed to appoint Latikaben and Bhikhalal Nathalal Patel who are sister and brother in law of both the brothers as arbitrators. Arbitrators by an award dated 07.07.1996 divided some assets between the brothers and kept some undivided with interest thereon of both the groups. Award was duly signed by both the brothers with a recital that they and their family members will act as per the award. Thereafter by an award dated 03.11.1996 interests were divided and the matter was finally settled. Anilkumar and his family member approached the Jalgaon District Judge contending that they became aware of the award dated 07.07. 1996 only after the notice of execution proceedings was served on them on 11.08.2005. District Judge ruled in their favor. Defendants appealed against this decision in front of Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court. Bombay High Court reversed the decision of District Judge Jalgaon. The matter reached the Supreme Court. Following issues were presented before the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Whether Anilkumar represented his family in the arbitration proceeding and he accepted the award on his family’s behalf?
  2. Whether High Court was right in holding that application for setting aside arbitration award was barred by limitation?

The decision of the Court

Supreme Court of India answered both the question in affirmative and relied on State of Maharashtra and Ors v. Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd (2011) 4 SCC 616 and Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors and said that limitation period for setting aside arbitration award application begins on the date of receiving of the signed copy of arbitration award by the party making it. Appellants contended that other members of Anilkumar’s family did not receive the copy of the award and were made aware of the award only after notice of execution, Hence period of limitation would start only from the date when they got the copy of the award. The Court rejected this contention and said that award dated 03.11.1996 was duly signed by Ajitkumar and his undertaking in the same award that he and his family members agreed and approved the award shows that Ajitkumar Patel was acting for himself and on behalf of his family. Moreover, Court also said that there was plenty of evidence which establishes beyond a doubt that Ajitkumar was well aware of the award dated 07.07.1996 and being the head of the family signed copy served on him amounts to signed copy being served on his family members as well.

Learning of the case

From this case, we learn that limitation period for application setting aside arbitration award begins from the date of the signed copy of the award delivered to the party making it.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -